Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that previously the petitioner was convicted and faced any trial, therefore, the petitioner may be granted benefit of aforesaid sections.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of this court reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 208 Darshan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in which in identical situation the benefit of probation was granted.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner is not entitled for any benefit because he has committed an offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which is serious in nature.

Upon perusal of above adjudication it is clear that in that case incident took place on 15.8.1982 and benefit of probation was granted in the year 1995 and here in this case, the incident took place in the year 1992 and this revision petition is listed in the court for hearing in the year 2014, therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled for the same relief.

Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed and while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the learned trial court, it is directed that instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment , he be released on probation of good conduct, on his entering into personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one sound and solvent security in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of two years from today and, in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. He shall also give an undertaking that during the said period, he shall not commit any offence punishable under the Arms Act. The petitioner shall furnish personal bond and one surety within one month from the date of receiving copy of this order. The seized 32 bore pistol stands confiscated to the State Government.